netdev - Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1206713249.4429.69.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:07:29 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matheos.Worku@....COM,
	jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, jarkao2@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X

On Fri, 2008-28-03 at 21:26 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I agree that using jiffies is a pretty coarse approximation of
> proper scheduling.  However, in the absence of a better solution
> we have to live with it.

I know it works well enough and has for years; sure you could do better
but i wasnt questioning the solution - more than anything on my part
that was curiosity.

> Perhaps running these out of process context is the correct
> approach.

I saw something from Max Krasnyansky along those lines but havent quiet
followed it up. Should be interesting to see the effect over a large
types of workloads.

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html